Why was Cain's offering rejected by God?

Well? Let's see here!
Galatians 5
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

I'd START there!

Is the sacrifice of the Lamb important to us? God has set the standard from the beginning.

You can’t squeeze blood from a turnip.😉

was Cain *supposed to* take some of Abel's flock and offer it?
was he not *supposed to* work the soil, but instead/also *supposed to* keep flocks of his own?

we can see how the explanation that lack of blood in the offering was the primary reason for its rejection leads logically to an implicit condemnation of agricultural occupation, or in the very least the implication that 'farming' is somehow evil if it's not combined with keeping livestock -- else we'd have to assume that righteousness/faith somehow demanded Cain to offer what didn't belong to him ((some of Abel's 'firstborn')). as i've already said, tho, if we take the position that a 'grain offering' in and of itself is unacceptable ((presuming this isn't a sin offering, on account of there being no such language in the text)), there's a contradiction looming with the various bloodless offerings of the Law.

it's probably still ((obliquely)) arguable that these offerings are meant to be guilt/sin sacrifices. granting that for a moment, and without condemning Cain's occupation, consider what's implied by his alternative:

if Cain *should have* offered some of Abel's flock, and we concede that the firstborn is what is acceptable, we have the conundrum of whether there are more than one firstborn so that they can both satisfy the requirements, or whether one offers a 'secondborn' - bringing into question whether firstborn/firstfruits has any real meaning or significance as far as what is proper or acceptable to offer.

so yeah, that becomes a mess pretty quickly, and highlights why this OP is a question that we ought to look at in more than a superficial way. ((thanks for the thread, Sketch ))

Hello Posthuman,

As I said and as scripture declares, the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sins has been taught from the beginning. Abel's offering was accepted because it required the shedding of blood. Cain's did not and it was therefore rejected.

Three false teachers...

One offered works
One did it for financial gain
One attempted to Usurp the one God had sent and was using

Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
(NOTE: Shortly after Adam & Eve sin. God made coats of skins to clothe/cover their sin. I believe we see here the first instance of the blood of the innocent paying for the sin of the guilty)

Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh
(NOTE: Abel brought his offering via FAITH. Obviously Cain brought his without faith. God views our own self righteous works as filthy rags - Isa 64:6)

Hebrews 11:6 without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him
(NOTE: Abel's sacrifice was brought in FAITH)

Genesis 4:
2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
(NOTE: Abel is a shepherd & Cain a farmer)

3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
(NOTE: Cain's offering is bloodless & 100% self works. 1 Jn 3:12 tells Cain's own works were evil & Abel's was righteous)

4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
(NOTE: Lev 3:16 the fattest, best of your flock, defect & blemish free, not lame or sick. God is to be, given, served with, the best we have. Abel's offering was, perfect & without spot. A shadow of Christ, God's sacrificial Lamb ,to come.

In later time's the fat was claimed by the Lord as his own (Lev 7 Another key here is firstling. (Lev 23:10-11) the Temple Priests were to bring a firstfruits (Christ rises on the feast of firstfruits) offering & wave it up before the Lord. This firstfruits wave then sanctified the whole field of crops. 1 Cor 15:20-22 Paul refers to Christ as the firstfruit of the resurrection. Whereby everyone, the whole field/human race that ever dies with be resurrected. Some to eternal life with God & other eternal separation from God)

Finally, I believe this passage of the LORDS respect for Abel's offer, implies: That with divine approval, God shot fire from heaven onto Abel's offering. Also see Lev 9:23-24, 1 Kings 18:22-38, 1 Chron 21:26, 2 Chron 7:1)

5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
(NOTE: Conclusion, the Lord had no respect for Cain's faithless, self righteous offering) MOO!

And there is good reason as to why it is the standard answer and that because it is the correct one. It's a matter of shed blood vs. the works of our hands. God bringing Adam and Eve animals skins to replace their fig leaves, the acceptance of Abel's blood offering and the rejection of Cain's offering which required no blood, the establishment of blood sacrifices given to Israel, all pointed to the ultimate sacrifice, which is the shed blood of Christ. That is exactly why Cain's offering was rejected, no blood! It's not about first fruits as in tithing, but has to do with the payment for sin. There is no other reason for God rejecting Cain's sacrifice.

Cain who did not have the faith to belive God having rejected the gospel would not obey the word of God (believe God)as did his brother Abel . His brothers blood cries out today of the mercy God had on him giving him ears and a new heart to believe God not seen .

Cain died in unbelief not hearing the gospel to receive rest again unlike his brother Abel who did mix faith (believe God ) and did rest in the sabbath work of God. Cain's heart remained hard as a restless wander. A reminder to us who have believed the gospel preached to us

For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.hebrew4:2-7

The boys were taught by the dad Adam what God required in an offering to cover sin. Adam and Eve first attempted to cover their sin with fig leaves which God rejected. God slew a lamb and provided a covering for sin. God established that sin requires a blood sacrifice because the penalty for sin is death.

Cain not only rejected the teaching but rejected God providing a sin offering which lieth at the door.

Why do we want to find a way around the necessity for blood to atone for sin?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Except Cain did hear the Gospel from papa Adam, and how God covered their sin, showing mercy through the shed blood of an animal.
Gen 3:21
(21) Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

No.

Who said it had to be from his labor?

AMEN......I agree.....he offered BLOOD in FAITH......clear as.........and through and through the O.T. we see this principle portrayed....culminating in the blood of Christ being offered for the remission of sins....

I’m going to stick my neck out again and add a few interesting verses.
Yes without a doubt Jesus was our sacrificial lamb etc etc and the
sin sacrifice was a bull - two in fact one for the priest and one for the
people. But...... the sacrificial laws were set up a good while after the
Cain and Abel story.

So.... could the following verses have relevance below. Even if Cain had sacrificed
a lamb would it still have been acceptable, or might there still have been a
problem with Cains attitude?

I’m just putting this out there as possible other scenarios.

Maybe....the problem was that he should have purchased a lamb from his
brother and was too proud and stubborn to do so.


Or maybe between the two of them they did offer the appropriate lamb and grain
offerings but there was still a problem with Cain and his heart wasn’t right with God.

Oh and one big question, what did Adam and Eve offer. One of Abel’s lambs? Or was
it appropriate for each faimily unit to being a lamb between them, in which case
Abel’s lamb should have covered them all. Just thinking about the Passover where
each household had to kill a lamb, not each person......

If it’s per household then the issue wasn’t with Cains offering from the land. But with
Cain Himself.


1 Samuel 15:22-23 NKJV
[22] So Samuel said: "Has the LORD as great delight
in burnt offerings and sacrifices, As in obeying the voice
of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, And
to heed than the fat of rams. [23] For rebellion is as the
sin of witchcraft, And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He also
has rejected you from being king."


Jeremiah 7:21-23 NKJV
[21] Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: "Add your
burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat meat. [22] For I did
not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that
I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt
offerings or sacrifices. [23] But this is what I commanded
them, saying, 'Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and you
shall be My people. And walk in all the ways that I have
commanded you, that it may be well with you.'

>Why was Cain's offering rejected by God?

***The passage in the Bible says as follows:

Genesis 4:3-7 “In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions. And the LORD had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted?...”

Abel offered the Lord a product of his own work, that of raising the flock from which he gives the Lord his firstborn. Cain, on the other hand, just pulls out of the ground its fruit for the Lord, something in which Can had no part in growing. Cain did nothing to produce the fruit; he didn’t prepare the ground, seed it, cultivate it, etc.

When God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful, He meant they should be fruitful by their own works, using what God created so they end up with more than what they started with from the earth. Cain didn’t end up more than what he started with, since the fruit was already in the ground and he added nothing.

So, God rejected Cain’s offering because he didn’t do what God commanded to do. When God tells Cain to do well, He means for Cain to abide by His commandments.

Hi Sketch,
This will be a very interesting thread ---- so much to get out of every story in the bible.

I don't know what the standard answer is --- I truly think that whatever we come up with will be opinion based on scriptural concepts,,,but I don't know anyone that has ever said they know for sure.

They both gave from their work. Cain was a farmer and brought God the product of his work.
Abel was a shepherd and brought God the product of his work. I fail to find any difference here.
I have heard that Abel's sacrifice was worth more because a lamb had more value than what farming could produce. I don't agree with this: Both items were food items and both were necessary to live.

I'd have to say that the blood had something to do with Abel's sacrifice being more acceptable.
He had killed the lamb. Jesus is called the Lamb of God. The blood was smeared around the door posts when the Israelites were seeking to flee from Egypt.

With the above, I think we need to say that the attitude with which the gift was given must have something to do with it. If not, God would not be a just God. Surely Abel gave with the heart, and perhaps Cain gave because he felt it was the thing to do.

Genesis 4:10
Abel's blood was calling to God from the ground.
The life-giving element of man had been shed.
Cain would no longer have peace.

His envy and hatred for Abel began in his heart
James 4:1-3
and ended in action.

Ever tried to grow anything, dig, out the seeds, take and fertilise the soil, plant seeds,
water it, keep watering it. Keep all the bugs away and weeds. Keep making sure it
gets the right amount of light, heat, shade etc. Prune it back to get the best flowers
or crop etc. Then harvest it? It’s back breaking work. Especially when done on a scale
large enough to feed a family for an entire heat. How do you know Cain just pulled it
out of the ground. Remember the earlier verses where God cursed Adam and said
by the sweat of his brow would he grow crops etc.

Because that's what the Bible says. Read the passage I provide. The Bible doesn't say that Cain worked the ground.

no argument about bloodshed for the forgiveness of sin.
you are making the assumption, however, that Cain and Abel brought offerings for forgiveness of guilt/sin and i'm not sure whether that assumption is justified. i don't see it in the text..?

every sin or guilt offering in the Law was with blood. bloodless offerings were also in the Law tho - the wave / sheave offering, the firstfruits, the consecrated bread etc. so it's evident that altho blood is required for forgiveness of sin, it's not required *in general* for an offering to be acceptable. Leviticus 2 is an example, laying out the general strictures for grain offerings. of interest there:

• it must contain no yeast or honey ((v.11))
• it may be presented as a firstfruits offering ((v.12))
• it must include salt ((v.13))